Who determines who is "bad"?

The Trip Down TSA Memory Lane—Looking For “BAD” People…

Ahhhh… The Patriot Act… Yes. Let’s connect the links.

After 9/11, finding terrorists coming into the United States had become a top priority. Finding the terrorist amongst us has made Americans leery about exactly WHO were our neighbors living American lives yet sworn to killing American lives. The search had turned from looking for bad things to looking for BAD people. What began as TSA searching of what airline passengers could carry onto planes changed to searching for how airline passengers would behave OR ACT.

“The incorporation of the ‘human factor’ in U.S. airport security is overdue,” Ron said. “In other terms, instead of just looking for bad items, we need to look for BAD people.” [Source, Emphasis added.]

Tomorrow, what would “bad” mean? The more headlines of bad actions that people have done, the criticism of BAD begins to be developed into more specific parameters, including involving moving into a person’s mental health state.

For example, the pilot who deliberately flew a Lufthansa plane into the mountains in France left CEO’s speechless. Was it deliberate? Was the man bad, evil, or mentally unstable?

“A recovery crew works among debris of Germanwings Flight 9525 at the crash site near Seyne-les-Alpes, France, on Friday, April 3. The crash killed all 150 people aboard and has raised questions about the co-pilot’s mental state.” [Source]

The term “bad” people would eventually have to be defined. Who would determine what was going to be bad. Today, it is a terrorist. Tomorrow, when your child is born, a DNA test will identify an “aggressive” gene. This is food for thought when the government does brain research and develops “interventions and strategies,” digging deep into genetic markers that can be used in the future against its citizens. This is the danger of personal data in the hands of government—when decisions are being made about you, which you have NO control over. When FERPA was weakened, biometric markers were included in the definition of what data could be shared. Is your child predisposed to a criminal or aggressive gene? Researchers are already predicting 3 year olds future problems. Ask: who has access to this data? [Source]

Could killing sprees like the Pulse gay nightclub or the Colorado movie theater killer be used to prompt the government to identify “bad” individuals with an “aggressive” gene? Remember that Adam Lanza, who allegedly killed the 22 people in Sandy Hook, Connecticut, has had his DNA researched by the CDC looking for an “evil gene”. So what happens if science can detect an “evil gene”? Will the National Security Agency be looking for “bad people” from blood types in personal records? In Obamacare records? A blood test is always done at birth. What happens next? Minority Report the movie comes to mind… determined at birth, fixed for life. Due process also comes to mind. Can you be prosecuted for something that you have not done? Do we have a Constitution, or not?

A Patriot Act of 2001 Linking Data To Education

The USA Patriot Act of 2001 amended the 1994 NESA (National Electronic Security Alliance) by permitting the Attorney General to petition a judge for an ex parte order requiring the Secretary of the Department of Education to provide NCES (National Center on Education Statistics) data that are identified as relevant to an authorized investigation or prosecution of an offense concerning national or international terrorism to the Attorney General. Any data obtained by the Attorney General for these purposes must be treated as confidential information “consistent with such guidelines as the Attorney General, after consultation with the Secretary, shall issue to protect confidentiality.” This amendment was incorporated into the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002 (ESRA) authorizing the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) to collect and disseminate information about education in the United States.

You do remember the IES—that data-hungry beast that all of the educational state longitudinal data systems are linked to in every state. Remember: “confidential” does not mean “anonymous”. They have it and they share it.

Will President Trump Issue Citizenship Tests For All Citizens?

A couple weeks ago President Trump praised a new book out called Green Card Warrior that explains the Canadian and Australian merit based immigration system.

President Trump’s tweet:

“Nick Adams new book, Green Card Warrior, is a must read. The merit-based system is the way to go. Canada, Australia!” [Source]

According to Adams, the merit-based system is a common sense approach that emphasizes patriotism and traditional values.

“We are basically saying that this is our country. We are going to determine who comes to this country and the circumstances under which they come. We want to make it really, really easy for good people to come and impossible for bad people to come,” he said.

Well, okay. How do you determine who already is in the United States that might be a BAD person? Defining patriotism, traditional values, or a good citizen now becomes a real challenge.

But the clear indication is that the National Counterterrorism Center already has the individual data monitoring system underway for quite some time.

In December of 2012 there was a clash between counterterrorism with the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice for the government dragnet sweeping up millions of records about U.S. Citizens. Chief Privacy Officer Mary Ellen Callahan stated that the National CounterTerrorism Center was examining US citizens for possible criminal behavior even if there was no reason to suspect them. [Source: “US Terror Agency to Tap Citizens Files,” Julia Anglin, 12-13-2012]

John Brennan, the former President’s chief counterterrorism advisor, recommended that Attorney General Holder sign the new guidelines even though the issues surrounding the “sea of change” that Callahan and others had addressed as being illegal. One of the biggest concerns was that innocent people could inadvertently be targeted.

Well, who knew. President Trump has unearthed some of these nefarious detections. Ms. Callahan resigned from her position, as well as the Department of Justice member who was outright against this move by the former Attorney General and the Obama administration expansion.

We can thank whistleblower, Edward Snowden, for unleashing the government’s mass surveillance system which turned out to be a treasure trove of personal data that explained how telecommunication entities had backdoors spying on American citizens.

So, in merging the counterterrorism data with IES social, emotional, and behavioral data, it appears that the United States has gone way beyond just a little data collection. A complete dossier of not only census, demographic, and financial data, but data on where you shop, what books you read or movies you watch, what you eat, where you play or work, who you call on the phone, what you post on Facebook, Google, Twitter, AND… also the social, emotional, and behavioral data from educational records… looks like a psychometric dossier to me. When the USA looks in the mirror, does it see Red China in its future?

Anita B. Hoge is a lecturer, educational researcher, and parent. She is the subject & main researcher for the book, Educating for the New World Order. Her story is told about an incredible journey into the devious & deceptive operations of our government to change the values, attitudes & beliefs of American children to accept a new world order. The first to document the expansive data collection operation of our government establishing micro-records on individual people in the United States. Experimentation, illegal testing, & data collection is exposed. She has lectured all over the Unites States in the 90's about illegal & controversial testing, curriculum, & collection of data by our government. Mrs. Hoge has also arranged & lectured town hall meetings all across the state of Pennsylvania to withdraw affective student learning outcomes to stop Outcome Based Education. Because of her efforts Pennsylvania parents won a major victory against OBE in 1992 and she continues the fight to this day.

Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Support CHO

You can be a part of the effort to continue getting the “Outsider” message across. Donate securely through PayPal.

Stay up to date!

Never miss the latest hard-hitting news analysis and commentary from CHO. Sign up for free email alerts.